Novels are disease to storytelling

>consciousness
>reaction to stimuli
are you trying to meme us?

>If you want to argue that consciousness and brain are two independent entities/processes then burden of proof lies with you.
There's no logical entailment from any known physical theory to what we experience as consciousness.

Your move

>People prefer novels over films? That's something I never thought I'd find out.

What a world

I unironically hope this guy dies in a fire.

How do you explain lobotomies, brain injuries, cognitive illusions (optical/auditory) and drugs if consciousness isn't physical? All above factors influence persons consciousness to some extent.

The only way you could believe that changes to the physical brain doesn't affect consciousness is if you had brain damage yourself.

The physical affects consciousness =/= consciousness is physical

try again brainlet

petition to ban materialists from Veeky Forums

signed

Not who you're replying to, but I always kind of thought of it like a symbiotic relationship. Two distinct pieces of a unified whole, one affecting the other cyclically. I don't really have anything to back that, but it feels right, somehow.

Just a thought.

This is really embarrassing. I feel bad for him

This is what Soulbrotha vids are made for.

youtube.com/watch?v=8gsVBDBtBB0

Anything influenced by physical processes is physical itself
Consciousness is influenced by physical processes
Ergo
Consciousness os physical

Lol this is fucking pathetic.

So would you care to provide anything to explain the causal link between physical brain changes and changes to consciousness or would you like to disprove the notion that there is a direct physical link between the two?

>explicitly assuming your conclusion

arguments like this only work if we have a good definition if causality

but we don't have a good definition of causality

P = physical
Pi = physicaly influenced
C = consciousness

Pi -> P
C -> Pi
Ergo
C -> P

How the fuck is this circullar you fucktard? The first sentence is from definition. The second comes as induction from empirical evidence.
The conclusion is NOT part of the assumptions.

>hurr if I pull out the syllogisms that means I'm a smartypants and I win

Pi->P is EXACTLY what's in question here. The only people that hold this view are materialists.

M (Pi->P)
M (C->P)
(Pi->P) (C->P)

You assumed materialism in your premise.

The only way you can even make sense of the world is materialsm you donkey!
Anything outside material world is empiricaly unobservable and therefore unknowable and most of all, useless!
Anything outside the material world is useless and unfalsifiable.
Ffs

>dude science lmao
kill yourself

The only way you can even make sense of the "world" is idealism you donkey!
Anything outside mental world is empiricaly unobservable and therefore unknowable and most of all, useless!
Anything outside the mental world is useless and unfalsifiable.
Ffs

That's why science assumes existence of reality, there isn't really any other way to make inductions about our world.

>implying Wittgenstein is scientism
shiggydiggymyniggy

the "external world" doesn't exist

that doesn't sound at all like anything Wittgenstein said

There's no way to know

American Psycho, The Reader, Fight Club, Les Mis even fucking Eragon, are all books which attempt to capture a society, not a narrative with a small number of actors. They always end up being constrained to the journey of a single character in translation to film(Bateman, not his affairs, his friends affairs, and his fucking suits; Michale, not Hanna; the narrator, not lower middle class white men; Javert, not every single character; Eragon, not the resistance).

>but we don't have a good definition of causality

Oh fuck this is actually pathetic.

Well for starters I just turned off the audio and read what he was saying via closed captioning and I got the same experience.

Why does he jump suddenly to something being religious? Because it's... what, programming or something? That flies in the face of authentic religious lines of thinking, which emphasise the gift of free thought and critical thinking far far more often than blind obedience, especially if his understanding of "religious" extends to Christianity. Unfortunately, he wouldn't know that kind of distinction *unless he read something* - you know, from a book instead of from a film?

Why does he babble for over a minute before kicking off? Is he that insecure about his position? Doesn't sell me on the authority he's trying to establish, here.

But anyway, we're apparently taught that novels are superior, but he's going to be all edgy and flip convention (because he's a REBEL like that, yanno) and say novels are a disease to storytelling. This is disregarding that, when it comes to storytelling, novels (and by extension, written literature... in fact why does he single out novels and not include short stories, novellas, epics, narrative poe- ah fuckit):

>Helped to fucking invent lasting forms of storytelling
>Give you interior motives of almost any character, which is something lost in an inherently visual medium
>Allow you to take a text at your own pace instead of the framerate of the film-reel, which makes rereading, digesting a story not only possible but also encouraged: it allows your impression of a story to change over time as you encounter it. This is easier than with film, as I don't need a fucking DVD player or a charging station for my smartphone when I want to reread a book.
>Being able to read a novel at your own pace and have easy access to re-reading it means you can be confronted with more complex material more readily, building your own knowledge, experience, intelligence.
>Novels can also be built on film-based forms of storytelling, so... if novels are a disease, and can easily make use of say, three-act structure, does that still make novels a disease, or films also a disease?

All he says is that novels are a disease and that novels are stupid. I mean, dude. The argument is based on show, don't tell? Why do I get the feeling he's projecting his inability to read into an overinflated and absolute form of argument? Can... can he not form images from words? Does he need images to form images? Poor soul.

>Filming is at anyone's fingertips
So is writing something down, retard. Pressing record on your iphone doesn't make you Werner Herzog, though.

Filming also requires a higher budget. Writers of novels can create impossible spaces and worlds and locations for the price of a biro and a shit-ass pad of paper from a gas station.

Filming is not just about vision; novels are not just about words. His argument is reductionist, naive, and he fails to account for the complexity of each medium.

The majority of Oscar best picture winning movies are based on novels.

Movies provide a completely different experience from literature and comparing the two is fucking moronic anyway.

Also, a lot of classic films are adapted (not created, ADAPTED) from classic novels.

He also has a complete disregard for an audience's participation. Apparently, a film audience is to shut up, sit down, and fuckin' appreciate all the hard hard work this filmmaker has done. They're not meant to think or engage with the fucking thing, God forbid. I mean, God forbid that, with a novel, you have to THINK what a person looks like or may sound like, making you a more active participant and letting the reader have more of a say in how this novel lives and breathes. Novels are superior because of that engagement - they build people up in their involvement, whereas, if we let this guy make films, they only want people to sit down, shut up, and be lame.

He also misunderstands these supposed fundamental rules of storytelling (see how he's going all reductionist and absolute again?).

He's apparently also never read good novels, where good writers can sketch in a person in just a few words or sentences. What about films that, frankly, have shit visual design or bad cameras? And it's only for a few seconds - that doesn't let me remember it. If you failed to get that across to a viewer, then poof, character forgotten. But it's more ECONOMICAL, right? Fuck off.

Films are not the best way to tell a story. Holy shit why does he contradict himself. "show, don't tell!" But he sticks to storyTELLing, and proclaims that films are the best way to TELL a story. Bitch, have you heard of a script, or a play? What about plays? Are they discounted because you don't have a camera?

He keeps saying this holy-grail of "rule of storytelling," which I'm guessing is still "show don't tell." Also, novels can be brief: Nightwood is barely 200 pages. He apparently also hasn't heard of Hemingway. He also takes an inordinate amount of time to get his point across.

It's better to read novels because it makes you more empathetic, it broadens your own worlds, your own words, your own experience of living. They stay with you far longer than films do. They increase cognitive function. Novels are superior.

He also doesn't know what escapism is, and thinks it's instead suspension of disbelief. Fucking hell why am I even going through this.

>Novels are what you see is what you get, that means they're bad.
>Films are what you see is what you get (show, don't tell!) that means they're good.
Fuck off.

>There's so much more to a film!
>Fails to give reasons.
>So many more creative fields are involved!
>So much busywork!
>So much budget!
>But films are somehow MORE! \o/ than novels! Despite them having no waffle or bloat!
Yeah, those fucking costumes those extras wore that one time are really worth it, huh?

>Films aren't just about one guy writing this or that! So much MORE!
>But but but but don't participate! Just watch the film! Watch what the FILMMAKER did, and ALL his EFFORT. APPRECIATE ME, DAMMIT. LOVE ME, DADDY. I SWEAR I'M NOT A WASTE JUST BECAUSE I CAN'T READ.
ffs.

signed

Bump

I always have a feeling that these people need constant visual stimulation to be sit down and do something.

What the fuck is this shit, stop posting your garbage here.

Pls watch my sonic comic wuba luba dub dub!

>the Sonic video has by far the most views
kek

>outside the brain
No one made this claim. Now, do you have evidence it is part of the brain?